Overseas Metal & Ore Corp. v. Mineracao Bomfim S/A

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Overseas Metal & Ore Corp. v. Mineracao Bomfim S/A

12 A.D.2d 761, 210 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12936

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 31, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 761 (Overseas Metal & Ore Corp. v. Mineracao Bomfim S/A) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Overseas Metal & Ore Corp. v. Mineracao Bomfim S/A, 12 A.D.2d 761, 210 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on August 16, 1960, denying motion to vacate service of process upon defendant-appellant, and order entered on September 2, 1960, denying motion to vacate the warrant of attachment and levy thereon, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent. In affirming the order entered on August 16, 1960, we construe the service of process as perfecting jurisdiction in rem to the extent of the property of the defendant-appellant levied under the said warrant of attachment, and not to effect general jurisdiction of the defendant-appellant. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, entered on August 16, 1960, denying motion to vacate service of process upon defendant-appellant, and order entered on September 2, 1960, denying motion to vacate the warrant of attachment and levy thereon, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent. In affirming the order entered on August 16, 1960, we construe the service of process as perfecting jurisdiction in rem to the extent of the property of the defendant-appellant levied under the said warrant of attachment, and not to effect general jurisdiction of the defendant-appellant. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 761, 210 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overseas-metal-ore-corp-v-mineracao-bomfim-sa-nyappdiv-1961.